Rams Stadium Negotiations

[not_a_wings_fan]

I just think the stadium deals are bad for the city, that's all.

But I don't know enough about the ownership group to speak competently on their intentions or their football operations.

I also really don't understand what is wrong with the current set up and why it can't be renovated.

As far as open vs dome - um, outdoor every time. The elements are part of the game, imo. I HATE sitting next to preppy assholes who are just there to be seen, and cold weather has a way of making those douchebags sell their tickets.

JNE, your panties get bunched because of the chill, then stay home. No one will miss you I am sure.

[cprice12]

Mike Claiborne of KMOX says there is no way the stadium is built.


Last Friday, the St. Louis contingent submitted their plan to save the Rams, or should I say, pro football in St. Louis. They showed some very nice drawings that were reminiscent of those unveiled by the City of Inglewood, California the week before. Kudos to David Peacock and Bob Blitz for putting this plan for St. Louis together, as they have certainly shown some leadership and vision at a critical stage for the survival of the NFL in St. Louis.

However, if you are thinking this plan will save the Rams, think again. I am willing to wager there will never be a shovel full of dirt turned over to help Stan Kroenke and his current St. Louis football setup. There will be no need to run out and buy some silver shovels and hard hats for the groundbreaking ceremony. It’s not going to happen.

For one thing, the Rams are not worthy of saving under the current ownership. How can you negotiate with a team when you have not yet had the owner in the same room? This is all for show.

As for the show plan, it is flawed on many levels. Let’s start with the concept of having an open-air stadium. 

An open-air stadium is nice for that limited group of so-called football purists who think it’s a good idea to sit outside in freezing weather to watch bad football. To have an open-air stadium where you could play a maximum of 12 dates a year for the NFL leaves you with a whole lot of open dates. Throw in a pro soccer team, which we don’t yet have, and you may add 15 more scheduled dates. An outdoor concert or two gets you to over a month of bookings. Last  time I checked, the year has 11 more months of days. What else is left after eliminating mid-January through at least April? 





http://m.stlamerican.com/sports/sports_ ... l?mode=jqm

At the risk of sounding racist... it's not surprising Claiborne doesn't want to watch a game in the cold.
Sorry Mike, but that is how football was meant to be played. Outside, in the elements. If people don't like it, then why do games still sellout when it's cold? It's part of the deal...and it's the best way to watch football.

An outdoor concert or two? I'm thinking they would have a few more than that.
Plus...
Truck and tractor pulls.
Motocross.
Monster truck stuff.
Border wars Mizzou-Illini game...if they ever resume it.
I dunno...I'm sure there are more.

And again, I'm not saying the stadium will get built as is. What I am saying is, IF it or a variation of this stadium does get the approval to be built, Kroenke isn't going anywhere...the league simply won't let him. And if Kroenke refuses to meet with Peacock and co....then Kroenke is in violation of one of the bylaws that says an owner must exhaust all options to make it work in the current city...which he has yet to even come close to doing.

Like I said before... if Kroenke is whining to the NFL about how shitty St. Louis is and about how much better LA would be, the NFL should simply tell him that he probably shouldn't have bought the team then...and if he doesn't like it, he can just sell it to someone else...but moving shouldn't be an option unless the situation in St. Louis is dire...which it isn't at all.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

Just a few posts ago you said the stadium WILL get built yet now you say IF the stadium gets built. Already changing your mind?

[cprice12]

Just a few posts ago you said the stadium WILL get built yet now you say IF the stadium gets built. Already changing your mind?

No, I said "a stadium will get built".
If this city wants an NFL team, they have to build a stadium. It's obvious the city wants to keep the Rams, and if they can't do that, they want another team.
So yes, I feel at some point a stadium will get built, otherwise, we'll never have an NFL team again. It might be the latest proposed plan, or it might be something completely different and down the road a bit...but one will certainly get built at some point.

As far as this specific proposal goes, I never said it would get built. I've always said, "if it gets built". I've been pretty clear on that actually.

[not_a_wings_fan]

Can anyone help me understand what's actually wrong with the current venue? I missed that part not being in STL.

[cardsfan04]

Can anyone help me understand what's actually wrong with the current venue? I missed that part not being in STL.

I think the main issues are that it doesn't have many corporate seats and doesn't have good tailgating. It's probably mainly Kroenke being an asshole, but it could use a facelift.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

Can anyone help me understand what's actually wrong with the current venue? I missed that part not being in STL.

Truth be told there is nothing wrong with it and the Rams could play there another 20 or 30 years. EVERYONE agrees St.Louis officials were FOOLS 20 years ago to kiss the Rams feet and give them ANYTHING they wanted to come here. That included this idiotic stadium deal that said the Rams MUST be in top 1/4 of all stadiums.

[dmiles2186]

Can anyone help me understand what's actually wrong with the current venue? I missed that part not being in STL.

Truth be told there is nothing wrong with it and the Rams could play there another 20 or 30 years. EVERYONE agrees St.Louis officials were FOOLS 20 years ago to kiss the Rams feet and give them ANYTHING they wanted to come here. That included this idiotic stadium deal that said the Rams MUST be in top 1/4 of all stadiums.

EVERYONE? Every single person on the planet? You have accounted and detailed all opinions?

[dmiles2186]

Can anyone help me understand what's actually wrong with the current venue? I missed that part not being in STL.

The seating environment is drab. You can see it on TV, you can tell it in person. I call it a 'warehouse with fluorescent lights.' The concourses are a little small and can get easily congested. I was at the Rams/Broncos game earlier this year and sat in the upper bowl. The food lines would extend all the way to the back wall, then you'd have foot carts against that back wall a ways down. So you'd have to go all the way to the wall on one side, then weave all the way back to the opposite wall to dodge lines just to get to the restroom or something like that. Then after the game, it was just a lot of people crammed into a smaller space.

I mean, you could probably make due with it as a venue, but the problem is that the lease states it has to be in the top 8 in the NFL or the Rams can leave. Obviously, any renovation is not going to put it in the top 8, so it needs to be replaced or else the Rams can leave (thus the current stadium proposal).

And domes made in that late 80's/early 90's era (Tropicana, Rogers Centre (Skydome), Georgia Dome) just weren't very forward thinking. Obviously, they weren't expecting these billion dollar palaces to be the new norm starting in the late 90's so they all just pale in comparison these days.

[cprice12]

Apparently the city could have agreed to a deal where the dome would receive 3 million annual in repairs and upgrades in lieu of the "top 8 stadiums" clause and wouldn't have given them an out after 20 years.
But they turned that down during the negotiations to bring the Rams here.
Dumbest decision ever. $3 million every year for 30 years is only $90 million. Now they are going to have to pony up almost a billion to keep the team.

If that was indeed the case, Kroenke probably doesn't step in to buy the team because he wouldn't be able to move them until the 30 year lease was up (since that was likely his plan all along), and Khan would be our owner and the Rams would likely be in no danger of moving.

Idiots with no foresight running the show...I'm telling ya.

[ComradeT]

Apparently the city could have agreed to a deal where the dome would receive 3 million annual in repairs and upgrades in lieu of the "top 8 stadiums" clause and wouldn't have given them an out after 20 years.
But they turned that down during the negotiations to bring the Rams here.
Dumbest decision ever. $3 million every year for 30 years is only $90 million. Now they are going to have to pony up almost a billion to keep the team.

If that was indeed the case, Kroenke probably doesn't step in to buy the team because he wouldn't be able to move them until the 30 year lease was up (since that was likely his plan all along), and Khan would be our owner and the Rams would likely be in no danger of moving.

Idiots with no foresight running the show...I'm telling ya.

Man, add a few redundant explanation points and replace "I'm telling ya." with "Even someone-famous-that-no-one-knows-of said that!!!" and it's a post straight out of JNE's repertoire, Curt. But yeah, city (or government overall) officials with foresight is a misnomer.

[not_a_wings_fan]

Top 8 clause? Does that continue into the new venue or is that being renegotiated?

I'd just let them walk.

What happens when you build a billion dollar stadium, it's #7, and two teams build new in the next five years? How often can you replace the venue?

I thought it was a shithole when it was built (I lived in STL at that time), so I am not shocked they don't like it.

[cardsfan04]

Top 8 clause? Does that continue into the new venue or is that being renegotiated?

I'd just let them walk.

What happens when you build a billion dollar stadium, it's #7, and two teams build new in the next five years? How often can you replace the venue?

I thought it was a shithole when it was built (I lived in STL at that time), so I am not shocked they don't like it.

A new stadium would come with a new lease and I'd like to think the city would learn from past mistakes.

I know there are people that would let them walk, and I can't really argue too much. Stadium deals usually suck. And they definitely feel like a slap in the face. But, it's important to me to have an NFL team here, so I hope we don't let them walk. Fast forward 30 years though, and it wouldn't make a ton of difference to me if it's the Rams or another team. I mean, I have an affinity for the current players, but Kroenke has really soured on me, and the Rams are just a really shitty organization. I could get used to a different team I think.

[dmiles2186]

Top 8 clause? Does that continue into the new venue or is that being renegotiated?

I'd just let them walk.

What happens when you build a billion dollar stadium, it's #7, and two teams build new in the next five years? How often can you replace the venue?

I thought it was a shithole when it was built (I lived in STL at that time), so I am not shocked they don't like it.

No, it doesn't continue into the new venue. It was just the EJD. That's one of the many sweetheart deals STL caved for to get the Rams. The lease said after 20 years, if the Dome wasn't in the top (I believe) 25%, they could move without penalty or go on a year to year basis (which is what they're doing now).

The positive of building the outdoor stadium is that it would allow for renovations (if needed), and the fact that it's being built in modern times, you'll have the necessities of a modern stadium (tons of space, tons of parking, lots of bathrooms, and SUITES, SUITES, SUITES). From what I understand, the Jones Dome, because of it's roof and the architecture, you can give it a facelift but only so much. Outdoor stadiums can definitely be altered if needed.

Also, teams building new stadiums is slowing down. Think of all the new stadiums in the last 15 or so years: Patriots, Jets/Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, Steelers, Browns, Bengals, Titans, Lions, Buccaneers, Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, Broncos, Colts, Vikings (building one)....those are all off the top of my head.

Teams that have renovated their stadiums: Bears, Chiefs, Packers, Saints...

Dolphins are currently renovating their stadium, the Falcons are building a new stadium. That's almost the entire league. I didn't even mention the Panthers and the Jags who started in 1995 in brand new stadiums. That pretty much accounts for the entire league except for the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers, who are all the candidates for moving to LA.

[dmiles2186]

Top 8 clause? Does that continue into the new venue or is that being renegotiated?

I'd just let them walk.

What happens when you build a billion dollar stadium, it's #7, and two teams build new in the next five years? How often can you replace the venue?

I thought it was a shithole when it was built (I lived in STL at that time), so I am not shocked they don't like it.

A new stadium would come with a new lease and I'd like to think the city would learn from past mistakes.

I know there are people that would let them walk, and I can't really argue too much. Stadium deals usually suck. And they definitely feel like a slap in the face. But, it's important to me to have an NFL team here, so I hope we don't let them walk. Fast forward 30 years though, and it wouldn't make a ton of difference to me if it's the Rams or another team. I mean, I have an affinity for the current players, but Kroenke has really soured on me, and the Rams are just a really shitty organization. I could get used to a different team I think.

Plus, if you add a potential MLS team to the mix, that means the stadium goes from 10 (w/ preseason)-12 dates a year to upwards of 45.

[cprice12]

Could be good news for St. Louis.
Definitely a headache for Kroenke...which is awesome.

Bernie: Latest chapter in LA stadium saga could benefit St. Louis’ efforts to keep Rams
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 175b5.html

The latest turn in the NFL’s game of California scheming is a real stunner: traditional rivals San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are becoming partners on a plan to build a privately financed $1.7 billion stadium in Carson, a suburb located 13 miles south of Los Angeles.
This is potentially good news for St. Louis.

And a potentially bad development for Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

I say “potentially” because it would be a mistake to jump to conclusions. The stadium game in LA has reached a fever-pitch level. Wealthy, greedy, increasingly desperate men are willing to shove their loyal fan bases aside to further enrich themselves by winning the battle of Los Angeles.

This is pure madness, and no outcome should be ruled out.

But yes, this could work in STL’s favor.

After standing on the side and barking about their inadequate, antiquated, existing stadiums, Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis finally took action and jumped into the fray.

The Chargers and Raiders aren’t willing to concede the LA territory without a fight.

In a three-franchise race for one or two Los Angeles slots, Kroenke made the first move and staked an early advantage by announcing plans last month to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the old Hollywood Park grounds in Inglewood, Calif.

All of the momentum seemed to be in his favor. Kroenke and his investment partners left little to chance, going as far as pushing more than $100,000 in contributions across the desk of Inglewood politicians in recent years to curry favor and expedite the stadium process there.

Rather than idly watch Kroenke roll in the tanks, pull the Rams out of the Midwest, invade SoCal and take control of a lucrative market, the California-based Chargers and Raiders have mounted a vigorous defense of their home-state territory. They’re attempting to execute a double-team block on Kroenke.

The NFL won’t have three teams in Los Angeles, so one of the three teams will lose out. And if the Carson project truly is on solid ground, the loser could be Kroenke.

So how does the Chargers-Raiders advance on Carson help St. Louis keep the Rams?

Let us review:

• If the NFL eventually must choose between Inglewood and Carson, then Carson has the edge. Why? When in doubt, go with the best cash flow. Go with the surest thing financially. A two-team stadium would generate more cash and stand on firmer financial ground than a one-team stadium.

• Relocation fees: The NFL can extract a relocation fee from one team … or collect relocation payments from two teams. Do the math.

• If the Chargers and Raiders pull this off and land in Carson, then the NFL will have rectified the league’s two worst stadium situations. The Chargers and Raiders have been stuck in old multipurpose-model era venues for too long. With the teams having little chance to get new, publicly financed stadiums in San Diego and Oakland, the Carson stadium solves a longstanding NFL problem.
• If the NFL has to make a choice here, then why would they abandon a market (St. Louis) that’s offering to build a new stadium for the second time in 25 years? Why allow Kroenke to jump ahead of Spanos and Davis, who have been waiting much longer than Kroenke for stadium relief? Why reward the one owner, Kroenke, with the right to move if he rejects a good-faith effort to build him a new stadium in St. Louis?

• Instead of granting the Los Angeles territory to a man (Kroenke) who played a major role in the abandonment of Southern California by helping Georgia Frontiere cash in with the Rams in St. Louis, the NFL has an opportunity to take care of two California-based franchises that have more pressing needs for a new stadium. As one NFL executive told me several months ago: the league prefers that the California problem be solved in California — and not by stripping a franchise from another region. Well, here’s the league’s chance to implement a California Solution.

• Three markets are in danger of losing their NFL franchise. But only one of the three markets, St. Louis, is trying to build a new stadium. So let me get this straight: the NFL would prefer to have Kroenke walk away from a new stadium in St. Louis and keep Spanos and Davis locked into deteriorating stadiums that should have been replaced many years ago? That’s asinine.
Now that we’ve covered all of that, let’s raise the caution flag.

There are ways for Kroenke to prevail.

The Carson deal could collapse. As a general principle, LA stadium plans should be viewed with skepticism. There hasn’t been a new football stadium built in Southern California since the 1920s. In Los Angeles stadium designs get shredded as frequently as rejected film scripts.

It’s an extreme long shot, but Oakland and/or San Diego could pull off a major upset and each come up with the public funding for a new stadium.

Kroenke could be pragmatic and devious and approach Spanos or Davis about becoming his partner in Inglewood. Split one off from the other, and then get the two-team stadium clout on your side.

In his lust for Los Angeles, Kroenke could go maniac-level rogue by attempting to haul the Rams to LA as soon as possible. Get there first, force the league into an extended court battle, and blow up the Chargers-Raiders Carson strategy. No one knows if the league would have the guts to block Kroenke from moving.

So maybe he’ll ignore the relocation rules and take his chances in court.

This is a long, volatile game. We can expect more power moves and jockeying before it’s all over.

On behalf of St. Louis Rams fans, I’d like to welcome Raiders and Chargers fans to the high-anxiety club.

What an embarrassing, hideous mess this is for the NFL: three markets about to enter possible lame-duck seasons, with fans in all three places fretting over their teams revving up for a cut-and-run move to Los Angeles after the 2015 campaign.

Deflated footballs apparently are more important to the NFL than deflated fan bases.

[dmiles2186]

Peter King is a bit of a blowhard but has some good quotes in MMQB this morning. Again, this thing is far from over. You can kind of tell all the strings and possibilities still hanging out there. No one can say with any certainty how this is going to play out. King's prediction, btw, is the Raiders in STL.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/02/st-louis- ... les-nfl/5/

I’m like everybody else with this Los Angeles thing. I’m on page 24 of a 300-page book, and it’s not all that interesting so far. But I hear the end is compelling, so I’d rather speed past the next 230 pages and go straight to the climax. Tell me what the end game is.

“What’s your gut feeling about the number of NFL teams playing football in Los Angeles in 2020—zero, one or two?” I asked Eric Grubman, an NFL senior vice president and the league’s point man on the L.A. market, on Friday.

“I don’t know the number,” he said near the end of a 35-minute interview. “But the least probable of those numbers is zero. I would say we’ve gone above the 50 percent probability that we’ll have at least one team there.”

The mystery brews. “You have to have some stomach to let the thing play out,” Grubman said. “I don’t know what’s going to happen. Right now I don’t think anyone does. I do know this: Los Angeles has real momentum for the first time in 20 years.”

* * *

It’s been two decades and two months since the Los Angeles area had NFL football. The Raiders and Rams left simultaneously after playing in L.A. and Anaheim, respectively, for the last time on Christmas Eve 1994. And now, Los Angeles is a game of musical chairs for three teams. The San Diego and Oakland franchises have announced their intention to bury the hatchet of a 54-year rivalry to initiate a joint $1.7-billion stadium project in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson. And last Tuesday the Inglewood, Calif., city council unanimously approved plans to build a football stadium that would be anchored by the move of the Rams from St. Louis. That doesn’t mean the Rams are signed and sealed for Inglewood, former home of the Lakers and Kings, just that the locals are promising to build a palace if they come.

The Chargers are still trying to get a deal done to stay in San Diego. Ditto the Raiders in northern California. The Rams? No one quite knows what the Rams are doing. Owner Stan Kroenke is the invisible man; many hugely influential business and government people in St. Louis and the state of Missouri have never met the Howard Hughes of the NFL. For years the Rams tried to get a better stadium than the Edward Jones Dome, and the franchise was rebuffed because of the immense cost. But now, faced with losing the Rams, the state and city are working double-time to come up with a solution that—if nothing else—would make it difficult for 24 owners to vote in favor of the Rams returning to Los Angeles. (Franchise moves must be approved by a 75 percent majority of the 32 teams, though no one is sure if Kroenke will abide by that bylaw or just pull up stakes and force the league to stop him.)

The rendering atop this column, and the gallery below this paragraph, is a start. This is the first time anyone outside the league or the committee charged with keeping the Rams in St. Louis has seen the renderings of the proposed $1 billion, 64,000-seat open-air riverfront football stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River. Grubman has been to St. Louis on several occasions to meet with the group working to keep the Rams in town and working to clear 90 acres on the riverfront and get funding for the stadium, and he’s bullish on their prospects. But prospects for what? Keeping the Rams—even though Kroenke has not been part of the discussions at all, instead choosing to have Rams COO Kevin Demoff head the team’s delegation in dealing with the transition? Preparing for a rainy day, and taking one of the teams (San Diego or Oakland) that doesn’t get a stadium built and sees the prospect of a shiny middle-American palace in a top-25 market? No one knows. But the venue is currency in these stadium-driven times.

“It’s definitely a legitimate option,” said Grubman. “I see no fatal defect to it.”

Grubman told The MMQB that the NFL will commission detailed market studies in all three cities—St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego—so the league will be able to control the process with the best knowledge of the markets over the next few months. He said the study has already been launched in St. Louis. Oakland’s will begin in the next week or so, and the San Diego study will start later this month. That’s important because the NFL wants to know the appetite for tickets and at what price, as well as whether personal seat licenses are viable, and how many premium seats and boxes can be expected to be sold. By May, the NFL should have the answer to those questions.

The NFL told any team investigating Los Angeles to be sure to include in the stadium design the ability to add a second team. The St. Louis plan in Inglewood does that—obviously, so does the Carson site. No one expects two stadiums to be built in Los Angeles. But, increasingly, there is an expectation that one stadium will be built in greater Los Angeles, and it will house one or two teams. Kroenke’s plan is the most advanced.

Potential end game: Rams move to Los Angeles. Chargers can’t get a deal done in San Diego and join them in Inglewood. And by 2019, Derek Carr will be the quarterback of your St. Louis Raiders.

Which leads us to this unfortunate part of the story: Kroenke seems (and I say “seems,” because of his actions, not because of his words—there have been none) to be the most determined owner to want to move to Los Angeles. The Chargers and Raiders want to stay put. But San Diego and Oakland have nothing stadiumwise in the works. St. Louis is by far the most aggressive with the best plan to keep the Rams, right down to an agreement to clear a 90-acre blighted plot downtown to make way for the stadium. And get this: Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has an agreement with skilled construction workers in eastern Missouri to work round the clock (three eight-hour shifts a day, every day) so the stadium could be finished in 24 months … without workers taking overtime. That’s significant because if the first shovel goes in the ground by this August, the NFL could have a pristine new St. Louis stadium built in time for the 2017 season. (That’s likely too fast a timetable; it’s more probable that stadium construction would start later, and the venue would be ready in 2018 or in time for the NFL’s 100th season, in 2019.)

So St. Louis has an owner with one foot out the door but with a solid plan to keep the team in a beautiful stadium. The preferred goal of San Diego and Oakland is to stay in San Diego and Oakland. Or, as Grubman said: “St. Louis is being aggressive and specific. San Diego recently has shown potential to be aggressive, but has not yet been specific. Oakland has been neither aggressive nor specific.”

It’s a tough place to be for St. Louis. But you wouldn’t know that by talking to former Anheuser-Busch president David Peacock, who, along with local lawyer Robert Blitz, is heading up the effort to keep the Rams. Or, in an unspoken but obvious alternative, to make St. Louis so attractive that if the Rams leave some other stadium-needy team would have to strongly consider a potential turnkey operation in Missouri.

“We’re trying to move with speed and certainty, with no ambiguity,” Peacock said over the weekend. “This is the right moment in time for a new stadium in St. Louis. We have a lot of young people moving to our urban core, which you couldn’t have said a few years ago.

“Stan has all kinds of options. We understand that. We can’t worry too much about that. I would be more concerned if we weren’t having regular dialogue with Kevin [Demoff] and Eric Grubman about all facets of the plan. We are relying on the integrity of the league’s bylaws. If you assemble all the important pieces—the control of the land, the stadium financing, the cost-certainty, the stadium plan—I don’t know … If we do everything we say we’re going to do, it’s hard to imagine 24 owners would vote against it. If we do our job, I can’t imagine 24 votes to approve the Rams moving.”


The St. Louis stadium project looks to be on solid ground. In terms of financing, there’s the standard $200 million league loan, which several teams have used, a $250 million commitment from the owner and an estimated $150 million from the sale of seat licenses (which may be optimistic is close to the level of the commitment at the new Minnesota stadium). The remainder would be raised through a combination of local, county and state taxes—including a proposal to funnel some state income tax revenue from Rams coaches and players to the stadium project. (An unusual revenue source, to be sure, but the thinking goes: If there’s no team, then the state gets zero dollars from those high-earning individuals who’d now be located in another city.)

But is it enough? And if Kroenke leaves, will it be enough to attract another team? I’ve thought about this a lot, and several people connected to the story say I’m not the first one to suggest this is the end game: Rams move to Inglewood. Chargers can’t get a deal done in San Diego and join them in Inglewood. Raiders, left without a stadium option, take the St. Louis deal. And by 2019, Derek Carr will be the quarterback of your St. Louis Raiders.

That is a virtual sports-talk-show bit of guesswork by me. But it’s the most logical thing I see, putting all the puzzle pieces together. I have a feeling, though, that the puzzle is going to look different in six months. And it’ll look significantly different than that on March 2, 2016.

The reason it’s impossible now to predict how each domino will fall is this: Each team has an owner, a city, local officials, a state government and some emotion involved. Los Angeles has four possible venues—Inglewood, Carson, downtown L.A. and the City of Industry—with desperado leaders, all of which and all of whom are wild cards. Some people won’t make decisions until pressed to the wall. So it’s really impossible to know what the reaction of one owner will be if one city does something, or Los Angeles does something else. What Kroenke has done well for himself so far is to create options. Billionaires are usually good at that. Kroenke’s no exception.

So we let the process play out, knowing that by the time the NFL turns 100 the second-largest city in the country should finally have a team (or two) back. Whichever teams they may be.

“If you asked the 10 people closest to this issue to all write their predictions down on what will happen to these teams [and the Los Angeles market] and seal them in envelopes, you’d have 10 different answers written down,” Grubman said. He’s right—but Kroenke’s in the best position of them all, here in the first quarter of the Los Angeles game.

* * *

[cardsfan04]

please please please please please don't let the Raiders move to STL.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

With Kroenke ' s stadium plan approved in Inglewood there is nothing to stop Kroenke from moving now. Even Bernie acknowledged that to an extent in his latest column. Keep in mind the NFL has NEVER stopped an owner from moving if he REALLY wants to.

[cardsfan04]

With Kroenke ' s stadium plan approved in Inglewood there is nothing to stop Kroenke from moving now. Even Bernie acknowledged that to an extent in his latest column. Keep in mind the NFL has NEVER stopped an owner from moving if he REALLY wants to.

Well, that's good because Kroenke doesn't REALLY want to move. He only wants to move.